Paper Details

Abstract: In the realm of analytic philosophy, the contributions of Alfred Tarski and Donald Davidson serve as foundational elements in understanding the interplay between formal semantics and philosophical interpretation. The method used by Tarski provides a mathematically accurate definition of truth inside formal languages, which is based on the correspondence theory. On the other hand, Davidson uses Tarski’s framework for a completely opposite purpose, which is to clarify meaning via empirical interpretation. Ultimately, Tarski’s model offers the rigorous formal structures essential for grounding a theory of truth, whereas Davidson's approach illustrates how these formal foundations can be broadened and rendered relevant to the fluid and context-sensitive nature of human language. This article presents a comparative analysis of two theories: the semantic theory of truth proposed by Tarski and the theory of radical interpretation proposed by Davidson. This comparative analysis reveals the lasting influence these theories exert on modern philosophical discourse surrounding language and semantics. The purpose of this comparison is to determine if these two important ideas are essentially in opposition to one another or whether they are complimentary to one another, as well as to determine the implications that these theories have for a more comprehensive understanding of language, meaning, and objectivity.

Key words: T-schema, Radical Interpretation, Tarski, Davidson, The Principle of Charity